Kuhn'sThe Structure of Scientific Revolutions revisited

Kindi, Vasso

doi:10.1007/bf01130927

Cited by 17 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Kuhn (1962/1996 y su larga carta a Wolfgang Stegmüller, 20 de enero de 1975 (TSKP 20.36). Entre otros, Cedarbaum (1985), Kindi (1995), Andersen, Barker y Chen (2006) e Isaac (2012b) han estudiado a fondo esa conexión. Kuhn (1976) explora la relación de su obra con Sobre la certeza de Wittgenstein, algo de lo que ya habla von Wright (1972); cf.…”

Section: Significado: Uso Y Asociaciónunclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

La Ruta De Kuhn Hacia La Discontinuidad: Más Allá De La Historia De La Ciencia

Mayoral¹

2020

cuaddefil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

En el camino que conduce a Kuhn hacia la concepción de la discontinuidad histórica del progreso científico en términos de periodos de ciencia normal y ciencia extraordinaria (o revolucionaria) hay ingredientes que no nacen específicamente de la historia de la ciencia y que son aportados por las indagaciones de Kuhn en otros campos o por convicciones propias que provienen de su educación escolar y universitaria. En este artículo se presentan dichos ingredientes y se muestra cómo cambia su contribución desde la primera síntesis de Kuhn en las Conferencias Lowell a una versión diferente y universalmente conocida: la de La estructura de las revoluciones científicas.

show abstract

Section: Significado: Uso Y Asociaciónunclassified

“…Kuhn (1976) explora la relación de su obra con Sobre la certeza de Wittgenstein, algo de lo que ya habla von Wright (1972); cf. también Kindi (1995) y Mayoral (2015) sobre esta segunda conexión.…”

Section: Significado: Uso Y Asociaciónunclassified

La Ruta De Kuhn Hacia La Discontinuidad: Más Allá De La Historia De La Ciencia

Mayoral¹

2020

cuaddefil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If scientists have developed an "emotional affinity" for their study subjects, and are more likely to display pro-environmental behavior in the context of elasmobranch conservation measures, it is important for them to examine whether this presents a personal bias toward certain management measures, and make an effort to examine all possible management options rather than what is perceived as the "best" management option from their own lens (Kiik, 2019). The progression of elasmobranch research has occurred within a broader social context, including changes in the philosophy of science and the structure of academic institutions, revolutions in scientific understanding, and larger societal events that influenced funding of research (Kuhn, 1970;Kindi, 1995). Each particular researcher undertakes their investigations from the lens of a certain worldview, being influenced by a unique combination of mentors, colleagues, ideas, and environments.…”

Section: Shark Researchers: Science As a Practice To Form Relational mentioning

confidence: 99%

Introducing Relational Values as a Tool for Shark Conservation, Science, and Management

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Relational values (RV) are values that arise from a relationship with nature, encompassing a sense of place, feelings of well-being (mental and physical health), and cultural, community, or personal identities. With sharks, such values are formed by diverse groups that interact with these animals and their ecosystems, either physically or virtually, whether a scientist, student, fisher, or media-viewer. Further, these user groups may overlap or come into conflict over management plans, media portrayals of sharks, and their conservation status. Although scientists have not explicitly aimed to assess RV through sharks, qualitative studies of shark fishers, tourism operators, tourists, and the public, as well as historical and archeological accounts, can be interpreted through an analytical lens to reveal values which can also be defined as relational. To this end, this review considers studies capturing RV alongside those of economic value (increasingly, the value of a shark is appraised by their financial value in shark tourism) and the social and cultural roles of sharks. Based on these studies and the broader RV literature, we then outline a workflow for how RV can be leveraged in scientific inquiry, equitable resource management, and education. We conclude that via collaborative assessments of RV, with implicit inclusion of multiple values of sharks and by acknowledging their importance to all parties involved in user conflicts, the RV framework can lead to a constructive dialog on polarizing conservation and management issues. By illuminating shared values, and/or revealing dichotomies of values ascribed toward certain areas or objects, this framework can provide inroads to mediation, seeking to conserve or even restore relationships with nature, and their derived values as much as is possible. This approach can yield unexpected knowledge, solutions, and compromises in an increasingly complex conservation landscape.

show abstract

“…From this perspective, Structure can be located in a broader tradition of particularist approaches in philosophy (e.g., see Kant [1781Kant [ ] 1998Wittgenstein [1953Wittgenstein [ ] 1958Sellars [1956Sellars [ ] 1997McDowell 1979;Brandom 1994). For connections between Kuhn's and Wittgenstein's views, see Kindi (1995Kindi ( , 2012 and Sharrock and Reid (2002). context of justification) and towards historically-situated scientific theories (in the context of discovery), historical analysis-as exemplified in Structure-provided an alternative model for doing philosophy of science that would strongly influence subsequent generations of philosophers of science (and science studies more generally).…”

Section: Structure and The Demise Of Logical Empricismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconsidering the Carnap-Kuhn Connection

Tsou

2015

Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, some philosophers of science (e.g., Gürol Irzik, Michael Friedman) have challenged the 'received view' on the relationship between Rudolf Carnap and Thomas Kuhn, suggesting that there is a close affinity (rather than opposition) between their philosophical views. In support of this argument, these authors cite Carnap and Kuhn's similar views on incommensurability, theory-choice, and scientific revolutions. Against this revisionist view, I argue that the philosophical relationship between Carnap and Kuhn should be regarded as opposed rather than complementary. In particular, I argue that a consideration of the fundamentally disparate nature of the broader philosophical projects of Carnap (logic of science) and Kuhn (providing a theory of scientific revolutions) renders the alleged similarities between their views superficial in comparison to their fundamental differences. In defense of the received view, I suggest that Carnap and Kuhn are model representatives of two contrasting styles of doing philosophy of science, viz., logical analysis and historical analysis respectively. This analysis clarifies the role played by Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions in the demise of logical empiricism in the second half of the twentieth-century.

show abstract

Kuhn'sThe Structure of Scientific Revolutions revisited

Cited by 17 publications

References 18 publications

La Ruta De Kuhn Hacia La Discontinuidad: Más Allá De La Historia De La Ciencia

La Ruta De Kuhn Hacia La Discontinuidad: Más Allá De La Historia De La Ciencia

Introducing Relational Values as a Tool for Shark Conservation, Science, and Management

Reconsidering the Carnap-Kuhn Connection

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About